不愿再说

已不愿再为这个国家作任何“贡献”，因为不会有结果。

一切都只是他们做出来给人家看的。虚伪至极。

最近看了很多关于交通等等的报道、亲身体验了很多关于交通的不满；而这些只是冰山一角，还有其他有关的社会、教育等等等等。。。。

算了，你们就继续为了你们自己的利益演戏吧。。。为了人民？我的脚（My Foot）！

你做你的，我活我的，我会为自己，和别国的人民生活。 你就继续吞下、霸占整个新加坡吧。

自圆其说- 不要脸

今天的报纸，他说："...最重要的是要做对的事，而不是选择政治上较受欢迎的方法..."，"... 如果这么做，其实是对不起投选你的人，也辜负全体新加坡人."

拜托！我很忙，所以简略的直接说吧：你是人们投选出来的吗? 还不是靠着你们的"集选"制度混进来的?有把握的话,让人们真真正正的选吧! 不要脸!

还有,所谓:："...最重要的是要做对的事，而不是选择政治上较受欢迎的方法...",已经是你们那一套老掉牙的借口,和"...不要把一切当作是理所当然的..." (三岁小孩都会背了). 说穿了,就是一句话: "我就是要这样做,你能怎样?".

拜托！我们不是"下等苯民",对不对,好不好,我们还是会懂的.为什么会这样的? 拜托!

看这个LTA白痴又在做什么。。。

看吧！看那些白痴又在做什么了。

允许折叠式脚车上地铁，巴士， 没什么不好。不过，怎么实施却又凸现了这个做事不经大脑，只想要“推出新计划“（是怕老板 - 在说你呀，林某某 - 说人家卫生部做得多好，多好，你却没有作为吗？）的白痴的空脑袋装的草。。。

这篇剪报没注明,第八波道的新闻却有详细说明,巴士只允许3个月,而地铁是6个月...

用你的脑想一想吧：如果你想要带折叠式脚车出门，要记得上地铁要在那日到那日，几点到几点。转巴士是又要记得在那日到那日。有一天你上得了地铁却上不了巴士，是不是又要气一下了？为什么就不能一次过设定一个日期呢？而且没事搞出这些可能会引起人民之间因脚车在已经拥挤的地铁，巴士上下时撞到人（尤其是小孩）的争吵，你吃饱了撑着，屁股痒，没事干了你？

没事干的话，拜托，多搭巴士，地铁，了解了解你辖下该懂得的情况吧，别老是闭门造车，惹人烦！

一点小事都干不好，为什么这样的？

还有啊，你的网页的News Release都有问题。。。唉。。。

"环保"在新加坡推行不起来

不只是”环保车”,” ”环保”本身在新加坡这小国都很难推行起来,更别论全世界.

首先要问: F1赛车及赛事”环保”吗? 政府一方面推行”环保”,一方面又积极引进对”环保”不利的活动,在经济考量的”大前提”下,谁在乎”环不环保”? 民众及机构接收此信息,纷纷效仿, “先管自己”盈利多少,再谈环保.

在某一个刊登在ST的访问中,某一个局(忘了是标新局还是什么)的局长就表示: 局里的车辆不多,用环保车不会有帮助. 你看吧? 那一般市民就会认为我们的一辆车,或减少一些垃圾就更不会有什么帮助了.

如果这里几辆,那里几辆, 整个和政府有关的车辆加起来,数目之庞大,利益之大肯定能让所有加油站也加入增添天然气等的设施, 接着,添气方便了,一般市民还不考虑使用环保车吗?

所以要成功,政府就必须要释放诚意: 先把所有政府机构的车辆都改装成环保车,再规定所有公共交通车辆必须是环保车. 单这两项,已足以大大提高环保力度. 若再取消对环保有负面影响的项目,如”F1赛事”及因此类项目而给人的错误信息, 环保才指日可待.

Super Idiot 超级大白痴!

今天看国会报道可以肯定这个人是一个"人渣". 如果我也是国会议员 - 不可能,因为我一定不会像那些国会议员一样的忍气吞声 - 我一定会站起来把他骂个狗血淋头,然后挂冠而去(忠言逆耳.是忠臣还是奸臣?领导者要做明君还是昏君?自便).

为什么当年孔夫子不愿当官,选择云游四海?为什么当年屈原搞到要跳海?如果不是有如这类阿谀奉承的奸臣只会一味的讲好听的话,如果不是领导者只沉迷于听好听的话,会这样吗?

举个例子:国会议员指德士,巴士应该免除或少缴ERP (非常清楚地指明这些组别),他怎么说?"如果说一个人载孩子上学时不需缴ERP, 而上班时需缴ERP;或者看医生时不需缴ERP,会很乱...". 天啊!超级大白痴!

为什么会这样的? 这就是"集选"的结果,什么垃圾都吸进去...别怪我,因为他们搞"集选"(难怪),我没有机会投票...

Going for public transport, are you prepared to lead by example?

I refer to the recent “big bang plan” announce by Mr Lim and wonder are our authorities prepared to lead by example by taking the public transport too? The best solution to an issue is to base on your own experience in the daily life – the reality world.

Call us stupid or whatever, there are many reasons why we choose to drive even we all knew that owning a car is one of the worst “investment” we could make. So clearly money is “not an issue”. Why would people not going for the public transport if its service quality is reliable and good enough to convince people to let go their car? The most recent incident of the MRT delayed which causes more than 5M people to felt frustrated is just one of the examples of how the frustrations build up.

I sincerely hope that before Mr Lim roll out more “big bang plan” targeting reducing the car on the road by getting people to go on public transport, it ensure that the public transport is doing their part well – not in term of profit margin – to win over the people’s heart, to forgo the car on their own accord. And to get the real picture, please take the public transport as your people do to find out.

here are just a few references to POOR public transport service in Singapore:

My experience, why am I unhappy with the police?

Tell you my own experience and you will understand why am I so unhappy with the Singapore's 'authorities' nowadays.

Remember the case where I was nearly hit by a Merc who forced his way onto my route in AYE? I when onto the net, searching high and low for Traffic Police or LTA web-site, hoping to find a place where I can lodge the report, there was none!

There was a hotline but was always engaged and, when it finally get through, it cut me out in the midst of the message (I don't even had a chance to nag...er, talk).

So I head down to the police post and only to be told that it is not their job. So I ask where can I make the report, the officer is kind enough to ask me to wait, while he call up Traffic Police to check, in front of me.

He made the call, identified himself, and what happened next was (since I can't hear what the other side saying): "...ya, I know, can you give me a reference where this public can make his report..."; " ... no, no, please give me a number..."; "... ok, ok, just any number, will you?..."; (Almost lost his patience) "... can you, just, give, me, a, number? any, number, please..."

(finally wrote down something on the paper). I look straight into his eye: "oh, even police find it difficult to get a simple information huh?", he replied: "well, you know, its under one head, but two different departments... hey, you may call this number."

I look at the paper: "oh, this is the same number I told you I have not been able to get through leh."

Why like that one?

Bus Assult Case - Police reply and public's comments

Yes, yet again another reply from the 'authority' that don't stuck a chore in me. Why like that one?

As those who commented the reply from the police, I too, had lost the confidence in police nowaday. Also unhappy about using of 'figure' to push the public around, are we a fool in your eyes?

Bus Assault - follow up

Reference the part that I removed when sending the letter to the St and Today in "Transport operators should stop being a cry-baby", I was worried that the press will discard my letter simply because they are afraid of the authorities' power.

May be I am wrong, I should have just send it over, like these readers... (well, some other thoughts I wrote, on Society and Education related page...)

These authorities do not have the intention to bear the responsibilities

I can't believe it!

Why like that one? The Tripartite Committee of the 'Cycling on the footway' study (ie, the LTA, Traffic Police and the Tampines Grassroots Organisations) are those who are in-charge in the study but yet they are not prepared to bear the responsibilities of any consequences that may arise after the decision is made.

As mentioned before (also refer to comment from the other general publics), the trial at Tampines may be ‘successful’ as it is being ‘monitored’.

In the end, someone must announce the result and give the ‘green light’ to go ahead to allow the cyclists on the footpath. By doing this, the ‘decision’ has made, and the ‘Tripartite Committee’ must be the one who announce it, right? Who else?

The statement: ‘the decision on whether to implement shared footways between cyclists and pedestrians will ultimately rest with the people themselves.’ is senseless and clearly an indication of trying to push the responsibilities to the general public. I really don’t believe I had read the letter like this from this group.

Another issue from the reply, which also link to the doubt we had for the Singapore Police Force.

Also refer to the earlier post regarding the ‘bus driver bullies’ case, will police take action when public call 999 or make a police report on the accident involved the cyclists on the footpath?

Why beating around the bushes and pushing us general public around like a fool? It only make us lost confident on the authorities. Sign… why like that one?


This is the reply by the Tripartite Committee of the 'Cycling on the footway' study.






These are the responses from the general public.

Transport operators should stop being a "cry-baby"

I felt disturbed reading the report “Attacked on bus drivers up; SBS fights back (Today, June 22) and the reply by Singapore Police Force “bus bullies’ incidents (No Scot-free ride for bus bullies, Today 26/06/2007).

Transport operators should stop being a cry-baby and the authorities should not send the wrong messages to them. There are countless of letters from public asking them to improve on their services, and we see some buses and long-buses jamming the yellow boxes during the peak hours, I even encountered a case where a bus flashes it high-beam and horn just because I stopped in-front of the yellow box, happened to block his way of existing the bus bay. Should I move into the yellow box just to allow him to exit and should I keeps writing the complaining letters about all these small issues too?

There are many factors for things to happen. Perhaps it’s time the transport operators seriously reflect on themselves and their way of operation. They had been complaining not enough profit, motorists not giving way to the buses and now being bullied by the commuters. Would all these happened if they had improved on their services, be polite and give way to the other motorists too? Please do not expect everything nice under the sun to be yours. It takes two to Tango.

(The follwoing was removed when mail sent to STForum and Todays' Voice):
Besides, I think police should be fair to all public and not bias to certain groups. I don’t understand why police would only ‘view the assault of bus drivers seriously’, ‘response immediately and take firm action against the assailants’, and ‘will proceed to seek the necessary powers to lawfully investigate and prosecute the offenders’, while the other cases on attacked on individuals (considered voluntarily causing hurt) as reported in some news previously, needed to go for medical check up, obtained the magistrate court order before the action can be taken.





See this too: http://forums.keeptouch.net/archive/index.php/t-73051.html

Importnat points for disappointment for allowing cycling on the footpath (II)

Got some reply from 'PA SouthWest CDC' (err.. what is PA?), anyway... "...will look into the points and will reply soon..." - will reply soon? Let's see.

And I am not the only one worried (not 'against') about what will happened if the ban is lifted, check these out:

Near fatal accident on AYE due to a driver's reckless behavior

I was nearly killed by a reckless driver along the AYE towards Jurong (few hundred meters before Exit 9) this morning between 8.35am-8.45am.

I was driving on 2nd lane from the right, where a BLACK color MERCEDES (License plate number: SW6226E) was in between a blue color car and mine. A truck was beside the Mercedes then. Our speed was around 80km/h. We are just after the colorful signboard of the Science Park then. The road was not congested at that time.

This Mercedes switched to right-most lane after awhile, I drove along and when we are around the NUS (should be after the speed camera, if not wrong). At this time, there is two cars distance between mine and the blur car in-front, the truck is beside mine, and the Mercedes is beside my car, on the right.

Merely less than 30 sec switching to his lane, he suddenly swing his car into my lane, getting very close to my side at quite a fast speed (while we are still at around 80km/h). I quickly sound the horn repeatedly and step on my break to slow down, the Mercedes paused for awhile but increase its speed and cut all the way into my lane and followed by ahead of the truck into 4th lane from the right to the left.

I had a hard time stepping on my car break and controlling my car as it sways towards the truck on the left, I can hear very loud screeching sound from my car, and I managed to shift it back to the right, nearly hit on the back of the Mercedes. It will definitely be a fatal accident if the Mercedes stop at this moment.

The Mercedes move along the 4th lane at around 90km/h for another 100m and make a quick turn (again) into Exit 9 at a near miss, cutting into its right lane to its left-most lane. Luckily there was car behind him but at some distance at that time. I was in the shock then but trying my best to keep the car at 80km/h and at the same time, remember his vehicle number. I should have follow this vehicle and see where is its destination.

I notice another BLUE color car is behind me all the way since the beginning till I exited at Clementi Ave 6. I managed to take down his number too (SGL3577L). I am sure he witness the whole incident. As far as I can remember, he was always around 3 cars distance behind mine before and after the Mercedes driver’s reckless move.

I did not know if the Mercedes driver is male or female or how he or she look like as I did not expect such thing to happen. When it happened, I was busy claming myself down and making sure my car is under control while at the same time, remember the number of the Mercedes.

It seems the driver is not sure or lost his way because he did not cut all the way to the left-most lane immediately after the incident, but this act has nearly cause a fatal accident. I think an action should be taken on this driver to correct his driving behavior. It is really unfair for people like us who drive with care if no action is taken.

Why like that one? Luckily I have the strong arms to control the car, hmmm... it pays to build those muscles...

Importnat points for disappointment for allowing cycling on the footpath (I)

ok, I had send out this letter to: South East CDC, South West CDC, North East CDC, North West CDC, Central Singapore CDC, Tampines Tow Council, LTA, Traffic Police, TODAY and The Straits Times.

Dear Sir/Madam,
The letter I send to the press regarding the issue below is meant for the purpose of early warning to pedestrians staying in the area other then Tampines. It is also a reminder to the all cyclists (including those staying in Tampines) to be aware that the rule has not changed yet, and all parties should take precautions to avoid any of such scenarios (mentioned in the earlier mail, below) occurring.

I am writing to express my view further and provide some thoughts for your consideration. I would like to emphasize that I have nothing against the cyclists and I enjoy cycling (in the park) too.

If things ain’t broke, don’t fit it, unless you can cover most aspect and made improvement. But it will not be the case for this issue.

Firstly, we are enjoying the ‘peacefulness’ between the cyclist and pedestrian community in the moment because, the cyclist are ‘controlling themselves’ since there is a rule stating that they are ‘wrong’ to cycle on the footpath. Knowing the human’s nature, everyone would want to fight for their ‘rights’, especially this has been something between the two communities for a long time.

Secondly, anything beyond the natural human’s body can be considered a ‘weapon’. Cyclist felt unsafe on the road because the other road users have a ‘lager scale weapon’ (the motor vehicle) then they are using. What do you think by comparing the bicycles to the pedestrians’ human body? So isn’t it unfair to the pedestrians?

Thirdly, I understand and support the possible reason for the decision to put cyclists onto the footpath is to reduce the risk faced by those ‘well behaved’ cyclists, including the younger kids (although many of them do not realize the danger of cycling at the fast speed, no matter where are they doing it), but can we imagine those who are using the ‘racing bike’ (usually alone or in a large group) on the footpath? What about those who are not ‘behaving’ while riding the bike?

And once the rule is eased, more bicycles will be on the footpath, for sure. Myself had always wanted to cycle to market and swimming pool as there is no direct bus service for me. But I had dropped the idea and use other alternative. The things is, once the ban is lifted, the footpath will be too congested since a lot more bicycles will be coming in. And soon, you will find that the cyclists are going back to the road again because it is too crowded. So now what? Not only the pedestrians are in danger, the cyclists too. And not only there will be fight for space between the cyclists and pedestrians, it will be between the cyclists too.

And one important point, it seems everyone is concern about ‘elderly’ or ‘children’ pedestrians’ safety. In the actual fact, any adult, even a strong man can be paralyzed if hit by a bike in a mishap.

Fourthly, it would be difficult to control the ‘type’ of bike allowed on the footpath. Already with the ban is on, ‘motor-bike’ are seen on the footpath (the lady who knocked me on my elbow is using a ‘motorized-bike’).

Last but not least, a trial is always considered ‘safe’ or ‘successful’ after a short period (surely you are not going to trial for 2-3 years), but once the ‘cycling wardens’ are removed, you will start to see all problems surfaced, are you going to change the rule again?

Further more, will all GRC be putting the ‘cycling wardens’ and even conducting the trial if Tampines GRC considered their trial as ‘successful’? Hence I also felt that it is inappropriate for Tampines GRC to decide the fate of pedestrian living in other areas.


So I think Tampines GRC and Traffic Police should work on enhancing the education on safe riding behavior on cyclist, example, make it a must to wear protection gear etc. All GRC should also get the ‘minor’ issues (like direct bus services etc) solved and not passing the problems faced by the cyclists onto the pedestrians. This is the reason why I say that the decision did not cover the ‘whole picture’ in the earlier mail.

Disappointed for allowing cycling on the footpath (published)

Thanks TODAY for the help to edit and publish my letter on VOICE (Today, 16/05/2007). ST just rang me up and said that they will also publish the letter (but I am going to send them another one, so not sure if they will still publish this one)

I am sure it will attract counter responses from tomorrow onwards, but let's look at it this way:

There has been less issues so far between cyclists and pedestrians because this 'minority group' (cyclists) 'know' that they are in the wrong and things are under control. Once they felt that they have the same rights, it is going to be a different picture altogether.

So if things ain't broke, please don't fix it (unless you can really take care of the whole thing).

I will be posting some suggestion here soon.

Disappointed for allowing cycling on the footpath (original)

I am very disappointed by the decision to allow cycling on the footpath. Yes, the “small group of them in Tampines” may not have to worry about if it is legal to cycle on the footpath, but the “majority of us all over the country” will now have to worry about our safety.

Already with the law in place, we are seeing the cyclist either zooming recklessly or ringing the bell impatiently behind us on the footpath. When they are allowed on it, I am sure this is going to run out of control. Once a lady’s bike bang on my elbow when I was walking my kids to school in the morning. There was once I have to shout to a man when I saw him scolding a young student walking alone in-front for not giving way to his bike, and there are a few occasions I have to scold some kids and ask them to get down and push their bikes when they keeps ranging their bells and approaching in fast speed behind me and my kids on the footpath.

From the figure shown to us, I wonder how many cases of the accidents and injuries are actually due to the irresponsible riding behavior of the bikers, but when the footpath opened to them, we may see two possible scenarios happen:

There will be increase of number in cyclists involving accidents causing pedestrians’ injuries.
There will be increasing of number in quarrels and punching between cyclists and pedestrians. We all know by fact now that police would not take any action if there is no serious injury in the case.

Tampines may deploy cycling wardens to encourage safe cycling and reward gracious behavior but how long will that last? At the same time, pedestrians staying in other towns will start to feel the heat as the cyclists here may get a wrong signal and start to make the situation deteriorated.

Cyclists feel the heat when they are on the road, but implementing a change without considering the whole picture is just passing the bugs from one place to another. This is as good as to keeps your house clean, you throw the rubbish onto an open area.

IVU Design related local news

On today's TODAY news paper's VOICE, a reader wrote about how an accident happened when a driver in front of her car come to a complete stop just right before the ERP gentry (obviously trying to insert the Cash Card into the IVU). She managed to slow down, but the cars behind did not. The driver in front simply drove off after causing the accident.

On today's TV news broadcast, wind screen of FIVE cars in a local multi-story car park was smashed, the IVU was pull out and the car owner found their Cash Card lost.

LTA still taking their own sweet time to due with these 'small issue'. Obviously anothe typical Singapore government's way of handling things: looking at 'bigger picture' (which could earn them more credits?). Why like that one?

LTA Replys on the IVU design

ok, got the reply from the LTA via phone regarding the proposed IVU design (see below). Well, was told that they will look into it, but the coming design would not have what I mentioned, why like that one? At least hide the cash card first lah... but, at least I get to spoke to a 'real person' and not receiving the 'standard reply mail', I am happy with it :-)

Ah, also told them about the link's problem and now at least I can provide 'feedback' and not 'forced' to send in 'compliments'....

Only the 'compliments' link is working on LTA website

I was trying to send the feedback/suggestion regarding the IVU design to LTA, but, hmmm... all the other email links in the LTA web-site for feedback are not working. I tried a few times and it keep saying: "Error: Sorry, your request cannot be processed now. Please try again later. ".

Only the 'Compliments' link is working - Why like that one? Are we suppose to send in only the compliments to LTA?

New IVU design should look into security and safety too

I read with interest the second news release regarding the plan to improve the IVU. However, while I am very pleased with it will allows the device to automatically top-up the amount when user passing the ERP gantry when its stored amount runs low, I am very disappointed that all parties involved in improving the system and device still overlook and did not include a very simple and small, but useful and important feature in the new design: Is there any significant to expose the card inserted into the IVU when it is in used, why can’t it be covered up? If the main purpose of the ERP method is to collect the payments, why can’t it be designed with a card (or do away the card totally) which fixed and link to the vehicle registration number internally for deduction when vehicle passing through the ERP or car park gantries?

A small improvement would not only help to reduce the vehicle break-ins as well as curb the possibilities of people abusing the system, it also help the drivers to avoid fine due to forgotten to insert the card. Most importantly, it will also help reduce accidents due to some drivers attempt to insert the card when near to the gantry.

(Note: Letter posted to Strait Times Forum and Today's Voices. 01/03/2007)

You see AGAIN lah!...你看啦！又来了。。。

You see lah! Again... in the reply to a reader on suggestion to implement 'auto-system' in HDB car parks, HDB and URA cited 'Costly' as the reason. So those 'points' in my The Biggest Issue Of Our Society 我们的社会的最大的问题 are 'no point' again... at the same time, in yesterday's news, some people are spending $1M to spray the painting on the drain, which would last only 3-6 months, and they plan to roll it out to other places - too much monies to spent? if you don't channel it to solve the (small) living problems first, you should at least give it to charity. Sometime really don't understand how the priorities are set. How are we going to be 'gracious' if the basic problems are not taken care of, and people are feeling frustrated with the 'small things' here and there in the first place? Whatever effort (and monies you 'throw into the drain' is going to be wasted)... sigh... Why like that one?! we are never going to 'get the problems solved from the bottom'.

你看啦！又来了。。。在回答一个读者的建议（“在停车场使用自动系统“）时，HDB 和 URA 又以“太贵”为由拒绝了。我在 The Biggest Issue Of Our Society 我们的社会的最大的问题 里提到的问题也立刻相对的被否决了。。。与此同时，在昨天的新闻里，有人却花了近一万元在大水沟里作画，而那也只能维持大约三至六个月而已， 他们还打算也推广至其他地方 - 天哪！太多钱没地方花，拿来这样玩？ 如果你不愿用它来解决一些生活小问题，至少把它捐给慈善机构吗！真不知道有时候他们是怎样来决定处理问题的先后的：如果人们还在为生活小事而烦恼，你做的再多（丢再多钱进去沟渠里）想建立一个"优雅社会"也是没用的。 为什么会这样的？！ 怎样才能“事半功倍”， 你不懂吗？

You See lah!...你看啦！。。。

you see lah! The bus and MRT compaines simply only care about the bus is not 100% full and not about how comfortable the public will feel! How many time must I remind them that, if the commuters feel good or comfortable riding the bus and train, they will earn like nothing, and by then, will they ever need to care if their bus or train is 100% full or not? Simply brainless...

你看啦！都说了，巴士和地铁公司只在乎他们的巴士和地铁车厢是否能100% 挤满搭客， 从不关心我们是否舒服。 需要我们提醒他们几次？如果搭客觉得舒服的话， 自然会把钱往他们的钱包里塞， 到时，他们还需管车厢是否100% 挤满了搭客吗？这些死没脑筋的， 气死人了！

Bus Service Is Better Now? 巴士服务比以前更好了？

哈！最受不了这种以数字来拖延问题的“官式回答作风”了！

那个准确度能有多少？一句话：是好的大家都会自动捧场，让你赚个盆满钵满。 大家是不是愿意自动放弃车子而改搭交通工具已是最直接， 最准确的调查了。

举一个最小的例子：单单从武吉巴督二道(Bukit Batok Ave 2) 和武吉巴督二十五街(Bukit Batok St 25) 一直到武吉巴督游泳池(Bukit Batok Swimming Complex)之间的这一段路吧, 连一辆巴士也没有。非得从武吉巴督二十三街(Bukit Batok St 23) 乘巴士绕远道才行。想想我们拖儿带女又拿毛巾，换洗衣物, 泳圈挤巴士的情形吧！事实上当我们走到二十三街(St 23) 了以后，就剩下一个车站多的路程了，小孩子走又嫌远，等巴士又太久，雨天或艳阳天都烦死了, 到了泳池已经一点兴致也没有了! 能怪我们连到五到十分钟的路程外游个泳也要驾车去吗？你以为我们想吗？ (到了泳池又有另一串问题， 看吧? ) (注：请看"社会专栏: The Biggest Issue Of Our Society 我们的社会的最大的问题")

说这是我们太空闲，是无聊的闲暇事吗？不值得考虑吗？那单单在武吉巴督东西区(Bukit Batok East and West)之间来往上述路段便没有直通车， 又非得去武吉巴督 巴士总站 转巴士绕远道才行，五到十分钟的路程变成了没半个小时不行 。。。

是，是， 又是我们的时间不重要。。。 那你是有心解决我们的问题，还是你的收益问题呢？别忘了这是一个雪球啊，大家不捧场，你赚什么？

小问题都不能解决，能解决大问题吗？ 巴士服务比以前更好了？喔！“我的脚!" ("My foot!" ) , 把时间省下来解决问题吧！

对了，我家对面有个很大的空地，拜托， 在那里建一个泳池吧，这样我就不会再唠唠叨叨的了。。。（很好笑咩？）

My Another Car Is a Bus? 公共交通问题与民生心理。。。

不知道是新闻播报的方式，还是报章的报道（是部长的原稿吗）？话说报章的报道中林先生指国人拥车的费用偏低，是造成车辆增多的原因之一，因此希望能提高国人使用公共交通的巴仙率， 尤其希望"中等阶级" (middle-class) 的国人放弃车子。。。

不知道为了什么，说是我们的心胸狭窄也好吧，每一次读到这样的报道， 我们这些小人物的心里总爱这样想：是啦，是啦，就你们有钱人驾车吧，我们就别不自量力好了。。。反正这全由你们来管，干脆把拥车的费用和门槛调高吧，干脆只允许"上等阶级"的人士拥车好了。在没有选择的情形下，我们还不得乖乖的去挤巴士吗？

"上等阶级"的人衡量拥车费用的尺度和我们不同，你们理所当然的觉得便宜，但在我们来说，拥车的费用却是“挺高的”，但为什么又要如此“不自量力“呢？你尝试从另一个角度来看吧：如果公共交通服务的素质真的太好了，人们还不抢着去搭吗？不知道新加坡人是出了名的“怕输”吗？（就好像多年前一位建屋局部长曾感叹：为什么人们老爱挑屋子。可在我们的想法，苏东坡也说：宁可食无肉，不可居无竹。而孟母三迁又为何？还有，数年前一位教育局部长也感叹：为什么人们老爱挑学校。在我们的想法，孩子的一生始于对他的教育方式，一个有好的校风与学习环境的学校是非常重要的，明白了吗？）

尝试从另一个角度来解决问题吧，比方说：‘上下班时间’的交通拥挤，那其余时段的道路空畅是否就可能意味着建设上的浪费，增加道路就能减低拥挤度吗？是否可以作些调整来平均使用这些道路呢？首先，‘上下班时间’的定义是否非如此不可，其中混杂的‘上下课时间’等等能否抽离？ 我们也常发现过了某段拥挤的道路后，前面道路一片坦荡荡，好些时候，是一些慢车在使用外线。这些明显又常见的现象，交警都“看不见”，大家就只好“习惯”了，不然怎样？

因此别一味把问题与解决的方法之范围定在’别人‘的领域里，比方说（又来了！是报道的方式吧？）：当巴士公司提到人们投诉巴士到站不停时，当局的解决方法竟然是：展开运动劝导民众及早举手。。。又是我们错了，唉。。。

人家说不要只是投诉，所以这里有个“不可能的”建议，（是啦是啦，会说“不可能的”就只能证明我有一点头脑而已啦，哼。。。）就如同泰国要年轻人做做和尚，我国也让年轻人当兵以体验生活一般，有关部长等人一整年都只使用公共交通工具好了。试试看在你累了一整天后，想在巴士或地铁打个盹，却被人说是假睡，不让位；或一天数次来回接孩子们上下课，心疼的看他们背着重甸甸的书包在炎阳或雨中奔跑追巴士，然后饿着肚子在车上摇摇晃晃；或带着一家大小购物后大包小包的挤巴士。。。 你应该不难找出问题的症结所在。如果“上等阶级人士“都率先放弃使用车子使用公共交通工具而不发一句怨言，那我们这些人还能说什么？ 如果你不“了解民生”，那你想解决什么“民生问题“呢？ 。。。该不会，你们的本意并不是要“解决民生问题“吧？

这里还有一个建议，你们把最左边车道全天划作巴士专用车道，最右边车道全天划作“上等阶级人士专用车道“，接下来的保留给旅游巴士，剩余的留个其他人去争吧。如果没有“剩余的“，那对不起，这条路不准“其他人“使用。这样你就不用烦了。

还是说一点像样的吧。“我们的公共交通系统日趋完善“- 是指“硬件”而已吧？好久前人们曾以伦敦的巴士来作比较。何不再来看看“巴士师傅”（改个名字就进步了吗？“德士”就更别提了。）的近况，他们在靠近车站前都放慢了吗（不然为何会来不及停车）？他们都比较有耐性了吗？我倒发现好些巴士（什至是双节的长巴士）经常在繁忙时间里停在黄格里（到武吉巴督三道和二十五街交界去看吧）；而有些巴士在一些有巴士专用线的路段也使用别的车道行驶； 或认定车辆必定要让他而强行转换车道。。。是时间太紧迫吗？他们有人撑腰所以拽起来了呢？还是车辆不够呢？

我想也许能试试后者吧？如果巴士或地铁的数量足够的话，大家都可以“随时”（看下段）搭到要乘搭的巴士，又能舒舒服服的坐着，谁还会吵着谁又假睡又没让位呢? 当然巴士公司又要说这不符合经济效益，说穿了还不是怕利益下跌？（要不就是有虐待心理，非得看大家挤成一团才开心。。。） 那么政府是否可以考虑以其建造更多马路，不如帮忙搞多一些车厢来，搞不好一切竟然迎刃而解了呢 ！

（喷饭？下次看的时候吃面条吧。。。）

最后（到底有完没完？）来说说我为何会走上驾车这一条“不归路“吧。我到三十多岁才学驾车并考驾照，为什么呢？都是因为在我太太怀第一胎时，我们经常乘搭德士去医院做检查，当时的德士司机都好“热情“，认定我们“搭德士“就是”赶时间“（是他自己要多赚几趟吧？），所以横冲直撞的（还曾经出过车祸！）。看着老婆巅颇的辛苦，叫他放慢，请他体谅，他竟说：“你不撞人也会给人家撞的！“。 所以当时发誓，以其被别人害死，不如自己自强。

十多年后也不是不愿尝试乘巴士，但是却发现巴士公司为了利益，在“非繁忙”时段减少巴士，造成巴士到站的时间“不定”，所以，打个比方，我必须赶着来回带孩子放学，却必须提早出门，不然有时因错过了巴士而迟了，孩子就要更迟吃饭(是啦是啦，我们的时间不重要。。。）。也不是没试过校车，一趟转转折折到来，孩子就“肯定”天天迟吃饭 （还曾有校车司机因为有些学生们在车上吵闹而故意把车停在一个地点，等他们安静。因此回到家时已经。。。）， 心疼哪！

这些“小事”不是你们这些"上等阶级"的人注意的（是啦，你们要看的是“大图画”（big picture))， 可是大海源于小河流，“小事”不能解，如何成“大事”呢？疏通了一点小堵塞，或许能事半功倍，水到渠成。